Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancestry charts of the current British royal family (Saxon and Scottish descent)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Ancestry charts of the current British royal family (Saxon and Scottish descent)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nom after failed PROD. Page was created as a spinoff of a now-deleted core page that was just an arbitrary collection of poorly referenced genealogical trivia regarding the British royal family.

This page begins with a false claim that the British royalty are somehow special in their ability to trace to antiquity (sic - the line given traces to medieval times, not antiquity, and millions of people can do this), then proceeds to show an arbitrary set of descents that have something to do with Anglo-Saxons (or not) and the current Queen (or not). It shows Elizabeth's descent from Alfred the Great through the pre-Conquest kings of England, but also another arbitrarily-chosen line through the counts of Flanders (ignoring thousands of other possible lines from Alfred that could be shown). It traces, for unknown reasons, the descent of the Scottish kings from the English royalty, that of Diana Spencer from a Elector of Brunswick, and that of an arbitrary medieval German prince, Philip of Swabia, from Alfred the Great.

The placement of (Anglo-)Saxon and Scot descents on a single page is a non-natural one. While one could argue that Elizabeth's descent from Alfred is central to her royal legitimacy, we already show this descent on Family tree of English and British monarchs and need not repeat it here also, nor would a merge improve that other page. As to the Scots, there is no legitimate rationale for tracing their descent from the founder of the English state, rather than from their own founder Kenneth MacAlpin (or even Fergus Mor). If we really are to have a royal genealogy page focusing on Elizabeth's claim to Scotland, it needs to focus on Scotland, and the best way to get there would be to TNT this one and start from scratch.

The page fails NOT:GENEALOGY, and lacks any kind of focus that would illuminate a specific topic. It has been flagged for a complete lack of sources for 5 years, with no attempts made to improve it. However curious one might find these descents to be, the current article's purpose is unclear and not well thought out, and because of the way it lumps together several independent genealogical phenomena, it can't really be improved because it isn't about any coherent topic. Agricolae (talk) 22:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 22:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 22:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  23:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. I cannot tell what this list is supposed to show. Srnec (talk) 01:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - The descent of the English (and British) crown is notable, but I am sure we have this elsewhere; likewise the descent of the Sottish crown. The other content is random and insignificant.  For example, both Charles Prince of Wales and the late Princess Diana were descended from several illegitimate children of Charles II.  That certain German princes are descended from children of Saxon kings is equally irrelevant.  The royal families of Europe were heavily intermarried, so that it is possible to construct many pedigrees that might show all sorts of things to illustrate potential alternative descents, resulting from counter-factual rules of inheritance, but these are generally NN.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, if you want non-notable counter-factual rules of inheritance giving potential alternative descents, we have that already too: Alternative successions of the English crown. Agricolae (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Monarchist equivalent of fancruft. Newimpartial (talk) 23:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. Seems to be Royalist special pleading. DaveApter (talk) 15:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.